John Gibson: What's taking Brits so long to take action against Iran?
The posts made by "Independent Thought were made by a troll using a regulars name"Congress authorized action against Iraq, and, oh by the way continue to fund it.
I don't know what part of that inane, nonsensical post to laugh at first.
Cedarford | 03.28.07 - 3:51 pm
=
Excellent post!
Congress is "breaking the law" by continuing to fund the Iraq war, even following the Democrat takeover of both houses?
Interesting theory.
I would expect no other reaction from someone as juvenile as you.
Godzilla104 | 03.28.07 - 3:54 pm | #
First of all, the Constitution gives Cingress the power to declare war, which doesn't have to involve the use of 'declare war.' Anyways, if Congress didn't give Bush the authoruty to invade Iraq, what did Congress think the military was going to do?
...and what did they think the President would do with all the funding for the Iraq war that they continue to vote for?
I find it hard to believe that liberals in America actually support oppressive, religious regimes over their own country. I am baffled, actually.
Yes. I assure you that I have read the Constitution more times than you have read birthday cards.
=
OK, I give up. Who GUARANTEED we'd only be in Iraq six months?
A link to this guarantee would be appreciated.
Congress kept funding the war even after Saddam's weapons were destroyed. Why do the Democrats keep sending Bush more war money to this day?
Well, on one level, I guess you are referring to the resolution Clintion got in 1998, with full Congressional support by Democrats, saying that the stated policy of the US was regime change in Iraq because the then-present regime was too dangerous.
One reason why Hillary, among others, signed on to the Authorization for Use of Force (AUF) which constitutional scholars say is the equivalent of a declaration of war - a phrase now made into an an unfortunate US Constitutional anachronism by the UN CHarter specifically prohibiting declarations of war.
We could legally declare war, but to do so would require us to end our membership in the UN.
That is why no nation has formally declared war since the Soviet Union did so in July of 1945 against Japan.
Ever since, nations have had to use euphemisms like "police action" "authorization for force", "endorsement of legitimate military self defense measures".
Anti-American Lefties that go all anally retentive on the outdated words have three alternatives:
1. Say the Sacred Parchment is so correct that we will withdraw from the UN so we can use the "Magic Words" of declaring war.
2. Resolve declaring war is illegal and never go to war - even when Americans are being killed remorselessly by an enemy and our vital interests require us to defend ourselves.
3. Change the Constitution to "Congress shall debate and authorize use of force" to comply with UN verbiage..Or just accept that Constitutional scholars and SCOTUS, obliquely (numerous rulings on legality of a Draft in undeclared war or application of wartime laws) has ruled it means the same thing.
But we all know it it just a semantic indulgence by America-haters fully happy that the unsaid words of the Constitution imply emenations of the penumbra making gay anal sex a Right. The leap to interpreting AUF means declaration of war is far less than leaps activists make saying the unsaid words of the Constitution can be interpreted to mean abortion, gay buggery, affirmative action, a commerce clause that gives the Feds carte blanche to be in all business of the States.....
When you say America is evil and Bush is a murderer, yes, you are then supporting the terrorists. You are saying the same things that Iranian state-run media says about us.
Well said. You notice how quickly they become 'strict-constructionists' as soon as they have to debate something as inane as what words to use when the Congress declares war? LOL.
Kevin, you are so clueless. Bush hasn't murdered anyone. Look it up. You still have not answered the question where someone "guarenteed" it would only be 6 months. Or, did you make that up?
You know, we will never be able to attain the far-left goal of 'no borders, no countries, no Gods' as long as recalcitrant regimes such as Iran exist. Is it that moral relativism thing that is keeping you from supporting the team? I wonder if you people have a counterpart in Iran? Hope so.
You need to stay away from the fast food.
I have to go get ready to teach my class as well. Take care.
That is a scary thought, Godzilla. Care to let us know where you teach so we can be sure to warn others?
I bet you teach in a very fair and balanced way.
Sorry, that excuse has not been accepted for 12 years and it won't be accepted now. It's Congress' job to craft a bill that can be passed and signed.
Are they not capable of delivering on their promises from mere months ago?
You have to remember: absolutely anything that happens will be some how blames on Bush. What Claudo is trying to tell you is that Congress would be fine if that mean Bush wouldn't use the veto.
Uh, dumbass, I already admitted I didn't know of anyone who guaranteed six months. Until someone proves otherwise, I'm going to assume I'm correct.
I usually am.
I thought you were leaving. You wouldn't know a fact if it hit you in the face at 90 miles per hour.
Darn that blasted Constitution!
O/T comment on Newshounds' advertising for John & Teresa Kerry's new book:
"This Moment on Earth: Today's Faux Environmentalists, Their Private Jet, and the View From Each of Their Energy-Wasting Mansions"
Dead on.
It is worth remembering that the two authors of the Constitution, Jefferson and Madison, authorized undeclared wars on the Barbary pirates and Indian tribes in open warfare with us. No declaration of war for the Founders, and Congress, full of Constitution signatories at the time, agreed it was fully acceptable.
Same with many other wars where again and again, both the Executive and Congress addressed and debated the Constitutional language and was fine, based on circumstances, with not formally declaring war.
The "mandate" of pro-abortion, pro-gay sex, pro-affirmative action Lefties to suddenly insist that in one sentence only literal language is proper is one of the all-time laughable red herrings.
While NYC still smoked, Sen Diane Feinstein led forces that really, really wanted a formal declaration of war against Al Qaeda. The hearing of Constitutional lawyers and scholars and Feinsteins consternation showing as she learned what a big red herring she had bought before was memorable.
First, they told her that declaring war was illegal, because Al Qaeda was not a nation, and the Constitution specifically said only a nation can be subject to declarations of war. And why starting with Jefferson, decisions to do undeclared war was partially based on that flaw the Founders had in not envisioning war had be fought against pirates or non-state parties.
Then one said they once did allow "letters of Marque" to have mercenaries fight pirates, so an alternative would have been the US sending Mercs...but unfortunately, the Constitution says international treaties trump the Constitution, and we signed the Treaty of Lisbon in 1848 barring Letters of Marque.
Feinstein again pleaded for any way where we could "massage" Al Qaeda into being a nation so the "Magic Words" could be uttered by her.
No.
The scholars and lawyers pointed out the UN CHarter. To "formally declare war" for the 1st time since the UN was founded - would require Congress to renounce the UN Treaty, withdraw, give up our Security Council seat permanently.
Sen Feinstein did not like that, and said she had many "people of conscience" that insisted on the literal words...
Too bad, the panel said. Fix the Constitution via a 1-2 year Amending process while the killers enjoyed safe haven in Afghanistan, debate the withdrawal from the UN also with a new Amendment saying terrorists are effectively the same as a nation....or just do what has been done dozens of times...say the Executive or the Executive with Congressional vote - can authorize use of military force.
To her credit, Sen Feinstein is capable of learning. She is more a true liberal Democrat than an Islamic enemy-lover. She finally agreed with the Constitutional judges and scholars being right and voting for the Afghanistan AUF.
LOL! You can count on liberals to run from a fight any time there's more than one of us giving the opposing viewpoint.
Having trouble with Google, probably.
You know that the UN states that about 60 thousand Iraqis have been killed since 2003. The far-left only listens to the UN when it suits its purpose, though. Discredited studies claim that 700,000 Iraqis have died. That is nonsense, and it makes no sense. 700,000? Those are WWII-esque civilian casualties. However, in Iraq, America is not mass-bombing cities and villages. American soldiers have strict rules of engagement. We have lost about 3,000 soldiers. If Iraq has lost 700,000, then the most lop-sided kill ration in history exists at about 1-233. You see, these things are 'facts' only if you are predisposed to want to believe them.
The fact that Iraqis are killing each other more than they are killing Americans, and the fact that insurgents are now blowing their own children up proves one thing: the whole idea that America is a 'colonial oppressor' and that the Iraqis are 'defending thier own' pretty much gets flushed down the toilet. You don't 'defend your own' by blowing your kids up. That is contrary to human nature on a few levels.
Well, Marxists and enemy-lovers have made this claim of yours for over 40 years, Godzilla. When some Lefty or Islamoid lover actually has begun to believe such insincere sophistry and gone to a good Lefty lawyer asking for a lawsuit to declare all war (even self defense) unconstitutional unless we leave the UN so we can say "formal declaration of war" - the smarter Lefty lawyers say such a suit would make us look like idiots.
The smarter Lefty attornies have had better success defending spies, terrorists, enemy supporters on older laws written in America before the UN existed that predicate wartime treason and higher penalties for espionage and aid and comfort ON a "formal declaration of war".
When dumb lawsuits do get in, saying "illegal war" regarding the legitimacy of the Draft, killing enemy, not treating invading North Koreans, NVA or Islamoids to civilian trials, the courts are quick to slap the anti-Americans down.
I would suggest you don't understand what a ratio is.
So, we now change the subject to combatants. You must have done the math, and you must have arrived at a caualty figure similar to 1/233. They pay you well. Since every Iraqi house hold is allowed to possess one rifle, there are many potential combatants, by the way. 3,000 Americans have died since 2003. It doesn't make sense that 700,000 Iraqis have died. As I said earlier, stat star, that is a ratio of 1/233. Way too lop-sdied to make sense.
An 'Empire' is something that 'rules' over disparate peoples. Try again.
3 comments:
Ahh,I see Enrico "the fake-ass physicist' Fermi is on spewing his shit.
Damn I wish that fucking ban was gone.
I'm not real familiar with the prior posts of Independent thought but he swears somebody was using his name and I am giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Count - IT is generally a very thoughtful poster.
And I've never seen him troll. That is honest truth.
I think he's probably pissed one of the regular trolls off adn they're playing games.
Post a Comment